The 2020 Health (Amendment) Act
This Act mandates that state and county governments oversee male circumcision, ensuring that it is performed by medically-trained professionals in safe and hygienic conditions. This aligns with the WHO’s stance on male circumcision, which contrasts sharply with its position on FGM/C, where it categorically rejects any form of medicalisation or safety mitigation. This chapter argues that legislation like the 2020 Act would likely not have been possible without earlier laws aimed at banning and criminalising FGM/C. Understanding the dynamics of male circumcision in Kenya requires examining the global context of policies on female genital cutting and the complex interplay between cultural traditions and state regulation.
It is necessary to bring male circumcision and FGM/C back into conversation with one another. The historical and ethnographic evidence from Kenya shows that the most significant rulings on female genital cutting have historically influenced efforts to regulate male circumcision. The 2020 Act reflects a long history of interventions, challenges, and controversies related to genital cutting, tracing back to colonial efforts to control and regulate FGM/C. Additionally, it signifies a new politics of bodily integrity in Kenya, shaped by the country’s national history and the influences of global health governance. Such shifts have occurred as human rights became increasingly ‘codified in the constitutions and statutes of African nations’ (Shell-Duncan 2008:229).
Writing about FGM/C and male circumcision in isolation obscures the legal history of their regulation and control by the state and global governance institutions, such as the UN or WHO. The Kenyan case is particularly instructive. The motivations for genital cutting are interconnected with the formation of personhood, sexual development, marriage, and broader identity aspects such as gender, clan, ethnicity, and national identity. The contrasting global responses – acceptance of male circumcision versus condemnation of FGM/C, as reflected in WHO policies – warrant scrutiny, particularly in African contexts.
The legislative histories of Kenya’s 2011 Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act and the 2020 Health (Amendment) Act demonstrate the interconnectedness of male and female genital cutting practices, shaped by global institutions like the WHO and American-funded health programmes. Tracing these practices further back to the British colonial period reveals enduring patterns in Kenyan discourse and policy on genital cutting, irrespective of gender (Adima 2020; Anderson 2018; Boulanger 2008; Hetherington 1998; Murray 1974, 1976; Pedersen 1991; Robertson 1996; Thomas 1996, 1998, 2003). These continuities underscore the need for future research to unravel the intricate historical, cultural, and global influences that have shaped these policies over time.
These legal reforms reflect broader efforts to reconcile traditional practices with modern health standards. They highlight how Kenyan mothers, facing issues like the bullying and injuries of their sons during circumcision rites, advocate for non-violent, safer alternatives, challenging entrenched norms. This activism, supported by national politicians, underscores a paradox in postcolonial gender politics: while promoting safer practices, it also raises questions about state control and cultural rights.
The primary argument here is that recent legal shifts in Kenya’s approach to male circumcision are deeply intertwined with the history and regulation of FGM/C. Growth of the rights-based opposition to FGM/C through appeals to promoting health and protecting bodily integrity first took root in Kenya’s 2011 legislation on FGM/C, and were later echoed in the 2020 law that regulates male circumcision.